1. Had our friend and colleague, Mr. Belaúnde, been in the Chair this morning instead of being unfortunately temporarily indisposed, I would have expressed to him the very sincere congratulations of the Australian delegation on his election to the high office of President of the General Assembly. It is a most well-deserved honour by reason of long and devoted work, for which the United Nations is so much indebted to him, and is, I believe in addition, an earnest of the esteem and affection in which he is personally and universally held.
2. This year the possibilities of a new approach to some chronic problems in international relations have been opened up, first of all by the courageous and imaginative initiative of. Mr. Harold Macmillan. The Heads of Government of the United States and of the Soviet Union — the two greatest Powers of the modern world — are visiting one another's countries. Mr. Khrushchev, has addressed this Assembly from this rostrum [799th meeting],
3. I believe it is true to say that a good deal of the world's problems in this post-war period have been due to deep-rooted suspicion between the two countries — between the countries of the democratic and of the communist blocs. Whatever the causes, the inescapable fact is that such suspicion exists. I believe that the matters that are bedevilling international relations at this time — a divided Berlin, a divided Germany, lack of progress on disarmament, and the cold war generally — I believe that the basic reason why these problems are proving so intractable is fundamentally the existence of a deep-rooted over-all suspicion between the two blocs.
4. The individual political problems between East and West are symptoms of something much wider and deeper. Some of the individual problems might still exist, even if there were no suspicion, but they would not be insuperable problems or carry the seeds of war. Consequently the elimination — or even the diminution — of mutual suspicion must be the objective of constructive statesmanship. This demands the creation of a better international atmosphere, in which existing individual problems will not have such urgency or potential importance.
5. If we attach such importance to removing or at least diminishing the present degree of distrust and suspicion, one must regard as a vital contribution the present series of high-level exchanges of visits. These began with the visits to Moscow of Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, followed by the visit of Mr. Nixon, and then by the visit of Mr. Eisenhower, to three European capitals, and then by the visit of Mr. Khrushchev to the United States. There will be Mr. Eisenhower's most important visit to Moscow, I expect next year, and, in addition, the probability of a summit meeting. Out of all this highly important chain of exchanges may come some more realistic mutual appreciation of the respective attitudes — and, one hopes and prays, some diminution of mutual suspicion and some more noticeable mutual confidence.
6. To those who ask if any of the existing individual matters in dispute are likely to be solved by these meetings, I reply that I would personally believe not necessarily. These meetings are designed to attack a cause of the world's malaise: suspicion — not the individual symptoms. If these high level meetings result in an improved atmosphere, the individual problems will be easier to deal with later and, in any event, they will represent a less dangerous aspect than at present.
7. The whole chain of high-level visits might be described as an exercise in public relations on the grand scale. I define "public relations" as a confidence generating exercise, not as a cure-all for specific problems. And I would add this — that it is unlikely that. confidence will be substituted for suspicion in one round of such high-level visits. Maybe the world will need a succession of such visits over a considerable period of time before the temperature of the world's political atmosphere is sufficiently reduced.
8. Moreover, suspicion is not just a state of mind which can be approached without regard for causes. On the democratic side, we find most difficult to understand the steady pressure maintained against non-Communist countries — subversion through foreign-inspired Communist parties; threats and incursions of a more overt form, as has recently occurred in Laos; even active border clashes in some parts of the world. Any new-born hopes for peaceful coexistent cannot persist if it is interpreted by Communists to mean: "Hands off so far as Communist countries are concerned, but a free hand for Communists in all other countries."
9. Relations between the great Powers are crucial to the preservation of peace. Indeed, the “whole structure of the United Nations is based on the principle of unanimity of the great Powers so far as maintenance of peace and security is concerned. Yet it is obvious that this unanimity does not exist. Our greatest efforts inside and outside the United Nations must be devoted towards widening the area of agreement between the great Powers.
10. It is now almost fifteen years since the Charter of the United Nations was signed at San Francisco. The Committee on arrangements for a conference for the purpose of reviewing the Charter, which has reported [A/4199] to the present session of this Assembly, was of the opinion that it is not timely to convene such a conference just now. The Australian Government agrees with that view. Clearly a sufficient area of agreement does not exist on possible amendments to the Charter to warrant such a conference. Nevertheless, it is appropriate in the general debate to ask ourselves some questions about where the United Nations is going.
11. Some thoughts about this will come to mind by reason of developments on disarmament last month. A Ten-Power Committee has been established outside the United Nations with parity of representation between the countries of the NATO and Warsaw Treaty — or, in the current but quite inaccurate term, between East and West. This poses two important questions: To what extent should international activities be conducted through the United Nations? And what place should a doctrine of “parity” occupy in our work?
12. It is quite clear that the drafters of the Charter did not intend everything to be done in the United Nations. The Charter is full of references to activities which not only can, but even should, be conducted outside of the United Nations itself. For example, under Article 33 of the Charter, parties to any dispute are told first of all to seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, or other peaceful means. There are a number of references to activity outside the United Nations — for example, reference to regional arrangements and to the right of individual and collective defence. Such references illustrate that it was never intended at San Francisco that every act of international negotiation and of international conduct should be made through the United Nations.
13. But the Charter lays down in Article 1 that the United Nations should be "a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends”, that is to say, the ends set out in the Charter as the purposes of the United Nations. The Charter also states in Article 103 that, "in the event of a conflict between the obligations of Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." It is clear, therefore, that even where the machinery of the United Nations is not directly involved in the discussion of a problem the over-all purposes and principles of the United Nations are still intended to prevail.
14. If every question was brought before the United Nations, its machinery would be brought to a standstill, just as a river can be clogged with weed so that the passage of ships is impeded. We have to approach this in a practical way, treating each subject on its merits. It has, for example, been a generally accepted practice, specifically kept in mind at the San Francisco Conference when the provisions of the Charter in relation to regional organizations were drafted, that disputes inside Latin America should be settled through the Organization of American States and not brought directly to the United Nations. The idea of trying to settle some things regionally is a sound principle which has worked very well in Latin America, and is one which, I believe, could often be followed with advantage in other parts of the world.
15. What about disarmament? The Australian Government does not feel aggrieved that the great Powers have had direct talks on this subject, and would not object to further talks proceeding outside the United Nations. The great Powers have the large armaments and the nuclear weapons which threaten the survival of the modern world. No agreement, no resolution of the United Nations, that did not obtain the consent of the Soviet Union, of the United States and of the United Kingdom could be of any real force. It is therefore a good thing that these three great Powers should negotiate with one another.
16. If they choose to exclude the smaller countries or the uncommitted countries, and take the view that agreement is more likely to be reached in direct and private discussions amongst themselves, then we have to accept it. Australia would certainly not wish to attempt to upset any prospect of the great Powers coming to an agreement on any aspects of disarmament.
17. At some stage, however, the United Nations must be brought into consideration and international cooperation on this question of disarmament. In fact, since the fourteenth session of the General Assembly began, an additional item: "General and complete disarmament" has been placed on the agenda [agenda item 70] and will go to the First Committee. I do not propose in this general debate to — attempt to discuss details of possible means of United Nations participation in the disarmament field. I shall content myself with yaking the point that the rest of us — that is to say, those of us who are not amongst the ten — have a great interest in the progress and outcome of the Ten-Power Committee talks. The consequences, and even the direct impact, of a world war would not be confined to the geographical part of the world from which these ten countries come.
18. Nor are Europe and the North Atlantic the only parts of the world in which the threat of war exists. Therefore, the other seventy-two of us have a very real interest in seeing that the search for a. settlement continues, and in maintaining pressure so that the convening of an inner group does not degenerate into a device for covering in eloquent silence the fact that possibly no real progress of a practical nature is being made towards reaching agreement.
19. Having said this, let me add that we must also recognize, as realists, that the most substantial and promising approaches towards a solution on aspects of disarmament have been, not in United Nations bodies, whether small in number or consisting of all of our eighty-two Members, but in the talks this year in Geneva directly between the great Powers, particularly those talks on the control of nuclear tests, on which there is reason to believe that agreement may be close.
20. Now a word about "parity". By parity I mean the proposition that in a committee there should be an equal number of representatives of the so-called East and West. Sometimes parity is interpreted as providing for a leavening of the uncommitted countries. Whatever meaning is attached to parity, I would regard its general application as unhealthy doctrine which Should not find a place in the United Nations. The Ten-Power Committee in Geneva, set up to work on the specific problem of disarmament, must not be allowed, we believe, to become a precedent for representation in other bodies, particularly for those inside the United Nations. Disarmament can be regarded as a special case.
21. The first objection to the doctrine of parity, as a matter of general application, is that it would tend to force countries into two blocs. Instead of widening possible areas of agreement, it would work to crystallize and freeze the world into two camps and make attitudes more rigid. Australia, for example, generally supports the policies of the West because we believe in the ideological outlook of the West based, as it is, on the conception of freedom for the individual. But that does not mean that on every issue we line up automatically with all countries of the West, regardless of the merits of the question as we see it. Can we, or any other independent nation represented in this Assembly, accept a doctrine of parity which would automatically assign to us in advance an attitude on questions coming before the United Nations?
22. In the second place, the doctrine of parity, as applied up to now, at any rate, could mean exclusive or at least preponderant representation for Europe and the North Atlantic countries. In the Ten-Power Committee, the whole of Asia, Africa, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand are unrepresented. I repeat that my Government accepts this for the discussion of disarmament, at this stage, because it is the arms of Europe that are under discussion in the first instance. We certainly cannot accept such a doctrine as a general approach to the majority of questions coming before the United Nations.
23. In discussing the general question of the role of the United Nations, I referred to procedures for international negotiation on disarmament. On the substance of the question of disarmament, I imagine that most of us when we came to New York this month thought that there would be little discussion at the present session of the Assembly, in view of the establishment of the Ten-Power Committee and because of the general feeling in the Disarmament Commission that there was not very much that could usefully be said about it here just now. But the subject of disarmament has burst the bounds and has figured prominently in this general, debate. An item on general disarmament has been placed on the agenda of the First Committee; Mr. Selwyn Lloyd outlined a detailed and practical programme [798th meeting] of disarmament, and Mr. Khrushchev in his address to this Assembly devoted [799th meeting] a substantial amount of time to. disarmament.
24. Mr. Khrushchev’s proposals are for the most part not new, but we hope that the spirit behind them is new. Progress in disarmament is very much dependent on the spirit in which countries on both sides put proposals forward and examine them. This spirit has to be demonstrated, not only in the broad enunciation of high principles, but in willingness to work out details to put them into effect. A number of matters which some might regard as technicalities, such as provisions for inspection and control, in fact lie at the very heart of disarmament, because they are essential to the creation of mutual confidence and safeguards against breach of agreements. Without such guarantees countries will not disarm.
25. I welcome Mr. Khrushchev’s emphasis on having a comprehensive approach to disarmament. In earlier debates in the United Nations, Australian representatives have stated the Australian Governments belief that disarmament in the nuclear and conventional fields must go on side by side and not as separate and success stages. It may well be that some points that have not proved susceptible to agreement as long as they are contemplated as elements in successive stages may, nevertheless, prove capable of acceptance if intended to be put into effect simultaneously as part of a more comprehensive approach.
26. All proposals will have to be given careful and honest examination, whether at this Assembly or in. some other more restricted forum. Discussion at this session can hardly go beyond some general statements. The smaller nations will now look to the great Powers, and would like to spur them on to practical detailed discussion. The Australian Government considers that disarmament might well be the most useful topic upon which the first summit meeting could concentrate.
27. The world will take some encouragement from the press communique issued on 27 September 1959 in Washington after the meeting of Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Khrushchev at Camp David. We welcome their reference to disarmament when they said: "The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the President of the United States agreed that the question of general disarmament is the most important one facing the world today. Both Governments will make every effort to achieve a constructive solution of this problem."
28. Now I shall touch on another subject. The affairs of the Middle East have held the attention of the General Assembly and of other bodies of the United Nations since the very inception of this Organization, and I do not feel that we should fail to record our continuing interest in its economic and political development. Many of the tensions and problems can only be tickled by those directly concerned, the countries of the Middle East, when the proper conditions and atmosphere exist, but the United Nations and others can help to bring about these more favourable conditions. In any event, the peaceful economic development and stability of the Middle East will need considerable outside assistance.
29. One item on our agenda item 27, deals with the question of Palestine refugees. This is of great importance to the countries of the Middle East and is a vast humanitarian problem. It demands the sympathetic attention of us all. It is not a question that is going to be solved quickly, and I do not believe that it can be solved in isolation from efforts to solve other problems in the Middle East, for example, the raising of standards of living and promotion of economic development throughout the Middle East. This is one of the points made in the document submitted by the Secretary-General, Proposals for the continuation of United Nations assistance to Palestine refugees [A/4121], It is the political disputes that tend to attract the attention of the outside world, but not the least fundamental problem in the Middle East is to increase production at a faster rate than the rise in population in certain Arab countries.
30. Another question that has remained before our attention during the past year, though it is not an item on the agenda of this session, is freedom of transit through the Suez Canal. This is of great concern to a large number of countries at both ends of the Canal — European and Asian countries as well as others such as Australia and the Americas — which need to use this important waterway for their international trade. I do not intend to go over any of the incidents that have occurred during the past year, mostly related to Israel, but, in view of these incidents, I wish to record again that we believe in free passage through the Canal for all countries without exception,
31. South-East Asia is the region adjacent to Australia. We have close relations with all the countries of South-East Asia and we have a direct concern with their welfare, progress, and security. Australia is a member of many regional arrangements linking us in common endeavour with these countries. For example, early this year the fifteenth session of ECAFE was held in Australia. Then, in November, I shall be going to Djokjakarta in Indonesia for the annual meeting of countries members of the Colombo Plan. I mention these as examples of the degree of fruitful and continuous partnership existing between Australia and its neighbours.
32. In the political sphere we record our satisfaction at the success achieved by the Secretary-General in his efforts to ease difficulties that had arisen between Thailand and Cambodia. This was a good example of the quiet constructive work that can be done through the United Nations, and it should not pass unnoticed merely because it was done in private and not in public.
33. in South-East Asia the situation giving most concern at present is in respect of Laos. The facts of the situation are far from clear, and it was therefore appropriate that the Security Council should decide to take steps to ascertain the facts before embarking upon any consideration of substantive action.
34. Since the Laos situation is still before the Security Council, I do not propose to go into detail on the subject. But it would be useful to state very briefly the Australian Government’s approach to the whole question of the status and international relations of Laos.
35. We support the right of the Government of Laos to exercise its sovereign rights. The Government of Laos is opposed to reconvening the International Commission for Supervision and Control, considering itself to have fulfilled its obligations under the Geneva agreements of 1954, the execution of which the International Commission was established to supervise. As the French representative explained at the Security Council [847th meeting] earlier this month, the Geneva agreements were never intended to place Laos under perpetual trusteeship. It would be an unhappy day for the United Nations if any of the smaller and newer countries among its Members were told that they could not look to this Organization in the same way as other Members could look to it.
36. Let me quote to this Assembly some remarks in the Australian House of Representatives, made on 17 September 1959 on behalf of the Australian Government by the Acting Minister for External Affairs; “I should like there to be no misunderstanding in the minds of Honourable Members about the Government’s view of the desirability of Laos continuing to avoid military alignment with either the Communist bloc or the Western Powers. That it should refrain from adopting such military alignments is in our view consistent with the intention of the Geneva settlement, with the need to avoid giving the powerful Communist, States on its borders any opportunities for provocative activities, and thus with the best interests of Laos itself. Certainly I believe that neither the Laotian Government nor any of its friends wish to see the neutrality of Laos abandoned or modified. Likewise they want to see that neutrality respected. "But whatever limitations on its foreign relations may reasonably be held to derive from Laos’ adoption of a neutral status, there can be no doubt that Laos enjoys the same sovereign rights as other neutral Powers, in particular the right to secure itself against any threat to its integrity, whether that threat derives from subversion, insurgency, or from incursions into its territory by foreign Powers. In addition it has the right to accept military aid reasonably consistent with the defence needs of a country with powerful and aggressive neighbours to the east and north and with a long and difficult frontier to police."
37. All Members of this Assembly will be watching what proceeds from the Security Council's transactions. We must all be conscious that continued moves against the integrity of Laos could mean involving other countries. United Nations consideration is designed to prevent this contingency from arising.
38. One feature of the general debate so far has been a number of references by representatives to the annual report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization. This reflects the [A/4132] amount of thought-provoking material which Mr. Hammarskjold has included in his report, and is one more example of the way in which he has been developing his high office so that it will help Member nations co-ordinate their own policies as part of the world community.
39. In his report the Secretary-General has some pertinent things to say about economic growth. Even before reading his report I had intended to say something about this on the basis of his notable statement on the world economic situation made on 6 July 1959 at the twenty-eighth session of the Economic and Social Council [1068th meeting] in Geneva. He has directed our attention to what he regarded as an indication that recently much of Government thinking in many countries seemed to have shifted from an emphasis on economic growth towards giving a higher degree of priority to other goals such as price stability.
40. The Secretary-General, I know, would not assert that economic growth should be pushed at the expense of all the other elements in a nation’s economic and political policy, such as the avoidance of a substantial rate of inflation or of severe balance of payments difficulties. There must be a balancing of objectives and also of alternative courses. I take it that what he was trying to encourage was a state of mind — a climate which he calls "growth-minded" — and for this I believe there will be wide support.
41. Indeed, his remarks are very relevant to our own policies in Australia. The Australian Government in recent years has pursued the major objective of developing Australia economically. Since the end of the Second World War, Australia has maintained a high rate of immigration, at over one per cent of its total population each year. The Government of which I am a member has insisted on keeping this high rate of immigration, necessitating a high level of public and private investment, a proportion of which has been derived from current income rather than borrowing- investment made necessary, for example, by the demands for additional housing, roads, schools, hospitals, and other capital requirements, all being under- taken before the new immigrants are able themselves to contribute on net balance to our total production. Over the past ten years, expenditure by public authorities in Australia has increased very much more than expenditure on personal consumption. This indicates the importance the Government attaches to economic development. The same story is shown by figures for private fixed capital investment, which has risen from 15 per cent of the national income ten years ago to 21 per cent today.
42. There has sometimes been criticism in Australia that we have been pushing this goal of development too far and too fast when we could avoid some of the strains by keeping on comfortably at a steady jog-trot. But we have rejected such a timid approach. On the whole, a society either progresses or goes backwards. As the Secretary-General said in his statement to the Economic and Social Council: "No one would feel that price stability had been well won if its cost proved to be economic stagnation. [ibid, para. 12],
43. But, of course, as I have said, the choice is not the simple one of growth or something else. Nobody wants big and embarrassing inflation. Even on the most severely practical grounds, too rapid a rise in prices and costs can discourage needed forms of economic activity. Economic development is set back if inflation proceeds at such a rate that the economic mechanism of the country is disorganized and the incentive to save is destroyed. Nor can any country push ahead with a development policy without regard for its balance of payments position, in regard to which it may very often be dependent upon the economic policies of other Governments. There have been some useful discussions in the past in the United Nations, some of them promoted by Australia, to the effect that all countries of the world, and particularly those which play the greatest part in international trade, have a duty to the international community and under the Charter to do their best to maintain a high level of domestic economic activity.
44. In this connexion I have in mind the Secretary-General's remarks about the repercussions on underdeveloped countries of a slowing-down in the rate of expansion of the advanced countries. What he says is relevant to my own country. Australia, though it is industrializing rapidly, is still dependent for its economic welfare upon the export of certain key commodities, such as wool, wheat, dairy products, and metals. We are therefore acutely conscious of the fact that a sustained rate of consumption and growth in the great trading and creditor nations is essential for the economic development of others,
45. One of the satisfactory features of the post-war years has been the great resilience of the United States economy. There has been, on occasion, a slowing down of the rate of growth of the United States economy, and on each of these occasions fears have been aroused that a depression might develop, with consequent difficulties for other countries. But the recessions have been short-lived and the slackening of economic activity in the United States has never been as severe as some feared it would be. This, of course, has been of immense importance to the economies of the rest of us. Another encouraging feature has been the recognition by successive United States Administrations that none of us can be healthy economically if the world economic situation as a whole is not healthy. With enlightened generosity — and I use those words — the United States has provided economic assistance to other nations to repair the ravages of war and to assist their economic development and to ease economic burdens. I have called this "enlightened generosity", because it takes a great people and a high level of understanding to see where their ultimate interest lies and to give effect to the necessary policies.
46. Before I leave the question of growth, I would draw attention to my remarks [759th meeting] in the Assembly last year about scientific research and about the need for positive action to spread and apply a knowledge of its results. Australia is a country whose continued economic progress is made possible only by continuous research to overcome natural obstacles, such as desert and heat and climatic conditions, and to enable the successful transfer to Australian conditions of plants and animals from other environments. We in Australia are not only "growth- minded" — we are "science-minded". In the modern world the two things go together, or so we believe. New opportunities are being opened to mankind by current scientific research in both the physical and biological sciences, of which we believe we must make the most.
47. At its thirteenth session the General Assembly adopted a resolution [1316 (XIII) sponsored by Australia on scientific research. The Australian Government looks forward to seeing during the coming year the first results of this international scientific study being conducted through the United Nations and specialized agencies as a result of that resolution. I regard St as a contribution to the state of mind — thinking in terms of growth rather than of safety-first — that the Secretary-General referred to.
48. In the general debate in this Assembly during the thirteenth session I ventured to lay special stress upon the importance to under-developed countries, including Australia's own neighbours in South-East Asia, of maintaining stable commodity prices and in particular of avoiding, violent fluctuations in such prices. Unfortunately I must substantially agree with the Secretary-General when he states that not much progress has been made in dealing with the problem of commodity price instability. Some progress has certainly been made, but not as much as many of us would like. In so far as it results in an over-all reduction in agricultural protectionism, my Government agrees with the Secretary-General, the World Economic Survey 1958 and the GATT panel of experts that industrial countries could significantly improve export markets for the under-developed countries by selective reductions in agricultural protectionism. My Government, and, I am sure, all countries which depend on primary products for an important part of their foreign exchange earnings, would like to establish a clear and continuing trend towards the reduction of agricultural protectionism over a wide range of primary production. The trend in recent years towards increasing agricultural protectionism in industrial countries is a cause for concern to those countries themselves because they must pay more for agricultural products. But it can also mean severe economic difficulty for the primary exporting countries whose markets and foreign income are constantly being eroded.
49. In his introduction to his annual report the Secretary-General raises the question of improving the procedures of the Economic and Social Council so as to "render possible a searching examination and discussion of key issues of decisive general importance at a policy-making level" [A/4132/Add.1, p. 3], There have been occasions in the past where it has done this, for example in some of the early discussion of economic development, and in the setting up of the United Nations Expanded Programme for Technical Assistance. There will from time to time in the future be other important questions on which international attention should be focused. We need not always expect the Economic and Social Council, or the United Nations, to make decisions or to take action as a body. The focusing of attention, the bringing together of people from different countries in related fields, the forcing of Governments to apply their minds to international discussions of particular problems — all these can be very important. The Economic Bind Social Council must guard against becoming too stereotyped in its approach to its work and drifting into a pattern whereby papers are called for as a routine procedure and get discussed and passed on in an equally routine way. We think that the Council must not neglect its opportunities to give a lead and to provoke thought on the bigger economic issues of the day.
50. The Economic and Social Council is the principal organ of the United Nations in the economic field, not simply because it is described as such in the Charter, but because it is the only body of the United Nations which is small enough to permit fairly detailed discussion and yet large enough to represent the principal regions of the world and the varied types of economy. The Second Committee of the General Assembly is too large for this work. Yet I believe that the Second Committee might sometimes be able to do more if the Economic and Social Council could give more guidance to its discussions — if, for example, the Council were to propose each year an important topic of discussion, not so wide that discussion can be only general, but a topic of defined scope and practical importance, with some supporting paper that would serve as a basis for discussion. An item with too broad a heading does not allow Governments to brief their representatives closely, nor does it allow discussion to be narrowed sufficiently to produce an impact on international thought. This year several important subjects are referred to in the report of the Economic and Social Council itself — which is item 12 on our agenda — but it is difficult to anticipate much prepared discussion on any one of these when delegates' attention has not been specifically called in advance to the likelihood of discussion on that subject. This is something to which the Council itself might perhaps give some thought, as a way of increasing its own effectiveness and usefulness.
51. On another subject, one of the great problems — probably the greatest — facing the world is the rapid growth of world population. The subject of population growth has been under close study over a number of years by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and by ECAFE. This study has resulted in the production of a series of reports, one of which was produced by the ECAFE secretariat for the consideration of the ECAFE Conference held in Australia earlier this year in the preface to this report, It was said: "The growth of world population during the next 25 years has an importance which transcends economic and social considerations. It is at the very heart of the problem of our existence." The rate of population growth varies from region to region and from country to country. The most important incidence of population growth is in Asia, which already comprises almost half the world's population. On the basis of present trends the population of Asia may have doubled in the next thirty years.
52. The present global rate of population growth is about 1.5 per cent a year which is expected to increase to about 2 per cent in the course of the next thirty or forty years. The present rate of growth of population in Asia is 1.7 per cent a year, with the prospect of rising to 2.3 per cent a year in twenty years' time.
53. By no means all the Asian countries are over- populated. But in some of them the population problem and its growth is of immediate and growing intensity and is a factor that currently influences the success of development plans. As is said in the introduction to the latest Economic Bulletin for Asia and the Far East: "There is even a danger that the developmental effort will not be large enough to offset the effect of a rapid population growth and that per capita income will decrease."
54. The main reasons behind these menacing problems are: improved health services, higher levels of nutrition and better standards of infant care. In many countries where the birth rate has remained fairly static, the death rate has decreased due to modern public health measures. This reflects the effectiveness of national and United Nations actions in these fields. These endeavours must and will continue. However, we must realize that, as is so often the case, an improvement in one direction brings with it accompanying problems in another direction. The basic problem will be to feed, clothe, educate, and employ the increasing population. On the short term, a rapid and extensive growth of population causes a large increase in the number of minors and dependents, and consequently a tendency for the living standards of the working population to be reduced. At a later stage, comes the problem of finding productive employment.
55. I will not attempt to detail methods of dealing with the economic and social problems of a rapidly increasing population. There is clearly no single or easily applied solution. My intention at this stage is to seek to bring the problem once again to notice and to stress the urgency of positive and adequate planning. This will necessarily vary from country, according to the social, religious and economic structure. For example, a national policy of family planning, which has been successfully initiated in India, and in Japan, would obviously be unacceptable in a variety of other countries of the world. In the countries that are now overcrowded it is difficult to see how the speeding up of industrialization or increased food production can keep pace effectively with the rising tide of population, although such efforts would no doubt reduce the scale of the problem. Likewise, large-scale emigration would be unpractical by reason of the vast numbers involved and the difficulties of their absorption into other economies. Even if it were practicable, saturation point would soon be reached and the problem would persist.
56. I make this plain statement on a matter of incontrovertible importance, which is already well known to us all, but which seems to receive much less high level attention than it deserves.
57. I am glad to place on record Australia's continued support of United Nations programmes for international aid. Including the Colombo Plan, our contributions to international aid in its many forms will come to over $14 million, an increase of nearly $3 million over last year's figures.
58. Australia takes satisfaction from the fact that, on a per capita basis, it is one of the five largest contributors in the world towards international aid. This has to be read against the. background of the fact that there are great demands on our resources for our own development and for the development of the Non-Self-Governing Territories for which we are responsible.
59. Australia is a net importer of capital, and so may be regarded as coming into the categories of both a developed and an under-developed country.
60. Subject to parliamentary approval, Australia's contributions towards the various forms of international aid through the United Nations for the financial year 1959-1960 will be over $1,700,000. In addition, Australia will contribute $12,320,000 towards Colombo Plan aid to the countries of South and South-east Asia — making a total of over $14 million. The previous year's total was something over $11 million.
61. hi conclusion, let me say a few words on a matter that I know is in the minds of a great many of us. In the world as a whole there is a movement towards some accommodation between the great Powers. But in particular areas of the world there are — and, unfortunately, it maybe expected that there will continue to be — tensions and potential sources of conflict, many of which are not susceptible to early or quick solution. In some of these places the United Nations has by its very presence had a beneficial influence; for instance, in ending open conflict or in calming the atmosphere. I have in mind such examples as the United Nations Observers in Kashmir and elsewhere; the UNEF in the Middle East; the Secretary-General's representative in Jordan, and the Secretary-General's own quiet diplomacy in the course of his many overseas visits. The United Nations "presence" in a trouble spot can be a great influence for peace. It is something to which men's minds are increasingly turning, and is a development which the Australian Government welcomes as part of the positive role which the United Nations can play in the world. Let us exercise our minds towards directions in which the conception of the United Nations presence might be developed even more than has been the case in the past.